8th JPO Workshop - Dakar, 23-27 January 2006
Decentralised Governance and Development
e-discussion, week 3
To send a message to all those participanting in the e-discussion (JPOs and resource people), please click here.
To access the list of participants, please click here.
Question for week 3 (Monday, 12 December 2005):
Enabling frameworks at both national and sub-national levels are needed in clearly defining and affirming the relationships between decentralised governance and its goals, as well as the relationships between the various stakeholders. Such enabling frameworks also serve as vehicles for providing needed resources, capacities and accountability arrangements. Based on what you’ve experienced on the ground, or in your general opinion, does UNDP have the capacity to bring local issues to the national level to effect policy change and contribute to an enabling environment for decentralisation and local governance?
Contributions:
From Antonie Kraemer, Public Relations and Communications Officer
UNDP Madagascar:
In reply to the question for Week 3 (and celebrating the fact that I've
been accepted off the waiting list to participate in the workshop):
I'd like to share some of the expereinces in the field of decentralisation
from Madagascar: The country is saddled with a highly centralised administration
inherited from the French colonial power, but 80% of the population is
still living in isolated rural areas. Decentralisation, as a basic prerequesite
for citizen participation and empowerment, is much overdue. As of 2004,
the country has four administrative levels: National government, six
Provinces, 22 newly-created Regions and 1500 Communes.
As for the enambling framework for decentralised governance, UNDP Madagascar
has found a niche in the process of developing "Plans Régionaux
de Développement" (Regional Development Plans) for the 22
newly-created Regions, as well as "Plans Communaux de Développement" (Commune-level
Development Plans) for the Communes. The value-added of UNDP has been
that of "neutral convener" of multiple stakeholders to ensure
their input into these plans, including government (local civil servants
and elected officials), civil society (local community groups, women's
groups, church groups, NGOs), and the private sector (tradespeople, transport
sector, local entrepreneurs). One of the key approaches was the creation
of a "Regional/Communal Development Committee" with representatives
from all these sectors. Round table fora on the implementation of these
plans are now underway. The plans are also used by the Regions to present
themselves to donors nationally, and even abroad (for instance by the
twinning with regions in France and getting funds from them). However,
the sustainable allocation of resources to these regional and communal
entities to allow them to properly fulfil their mandate is still proving
difficult. The legal framework that relgulates the mandates of each of
these entities also needs further clarification and updating.
Another role that UNDP has played is in the provision of training workshops
for the administration of decentralised entities, including on regional
development planning, budgeting (and relating the budget to the Regional/Communal
Development Plan), monitoring and evaluation, HR management, and the
legal framework of the local government official. The problem here is
that those trained are often elected officials (such as "Chefs de
Région" and Mayors) who might disappear a few years down
the line (Mayors cannot even stand for re-election in the current legal
framework). It would be interesting if anybody could share initiatives
that ensure the sustainability of such training. One of our solutions
has been to produce written manuals, including "Guides to creating
Regional/Communal Development Plans", "The Mayor's Guide" and "Guide
to accounting".
So in conclusion, in terms of contributing to the enabling environment
for local governance, the UNDP has facilitated the coming together of
local stakeholders around local development plans, and has contributed
to capacity development of local officials. In the future, UNDP should
also be able to play a role in the continuous need to build confidence
between central government and local/regional government, in order to
facilitate the transfer of resources from the former to the latter, and
in order to help ensure that the legal framework is clear about the mandate
and role of each entity.
Best,
From Jochem Ramakers, Programme Officer
UNDP Timor-Leste:
Dear colleagues,
I think that UNDP does have the capacity to bring local issues to the
national level to effect policy change. A prerequisite for this is that
there is interest at the policy level in the lessons learned from the
local initiatives. For this you need a champion within the Government
who is able to move things, preferably at the Minister level. Furthermore,
if you want to pilot decentralisation, it is better to pilot with an
integrated approach. Central governments are most often afraid of giving
too much authority to local governments out of fear of transparency issues.
Therefore, you need to convince them that sufficient capacity exists
at the local level. Apart from piloting local participative planning
processes, what the central level is possibly even more interested in
is the capacity at the local level to handle corresponding administrative
processes related to procurement and financial management, possibly human
resource management as well, to back up the responsibility that comes
with the transfer of substantial funds to the local level. The most commonly
heard complaint from central level governments is that the lower levels
do not have sufficient capacity in their eyes. Provided that there is
sincere interest in decentralisation (another fear of the central level
could be that local politicians could become too powerful or influential
and pose a threat to central power), a decentralisation pilot could do
well if it were based on the actual transfer of funds to the local level.
The empowerment impact on the local level will be much greater if they
are actually given access to funds, as compared to when they are only
allowed to produce a plan. Sustainability of funds is best guaranteed
if the government takes on the disbursement of these funds as part of
its own budget. This also shows or will create more national ownership.
Depending on continued donor support for years and years to come is not
the right solution. A middle way solution may be to use donor budget
support to fund the intergovernmental transfers.
This does require some trust in the local governments, both from the
government and from the donor and UNDP. A comprehensive framework for
decentralisation pilots is provided by the LDP model that is utilised
by UNCDF. This model focuses on building the capacity at the local level
and designing country-specific procedures for intergovernmental fiscal
relations. This model can be complemented by mechanisms that aim to strengthen
the accountability of the local governments to their constituents, involving
CSO's etc.
In Timor-Leste UNDP is working with UNCDF to implement a Local Development
Programme which is linked up to a policy support programme. Timor-Leste
is in the process of designing its local government system and is looking
at the practical lessons learned from the LDP to provide lessons to the
policy formulation process. As expected the Ministry of Planning and
Finance is reluctant, but we have a powerful champion in the Minister
of State Administration.
Lastly, in terms of the sustainability of training provided to assembly
members: sustainability can be enhanced if capacity building is approached
from an organisational and institutional perspective. Even though individual
members may leave, the institution will remain. Efforts should therefore
be focussed on the maximum retention of capacity in the institution rather
than in the individual. Sustainable capacity can be built through support
structures, through resourcing local assemblies adequately. The organisational
structure of political parties can provide a more constant backbone to
the institution by substantially backing up its members that are in office.
Especially ex-officials can play an important role in mentoring current
officials.
These emails always turn out a lot longer than I think!
Have a good time at the workshop! And a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year too!
Jochem.
From Emmanuel Bor, Programme Officer
UNDP Headquarters - CSO Division / Bureau for Resources and Strategic Partnerships:
Dear all,
Thanks to the colleagues who provided very interesting contributions.
I would like to suggest two issues for the workshop’s agenda, with
reference to two recent OCDE reports that bring some new light to the not-so-obvious
link between decentralized governance and development.
The first issue is the impact of decentralization on poverty. A 2004 OCDE report (Decentralization and poverty in developing countries: exploring the impact) suggests that this impact is not straightforward; the report argues that “in countries where the state lacks the capacity to fulfill its basic functions, there is a definite risk that decentralization will increase poverty rather than reduce it”.
The second issue is the sustainability of UNDP support to decentralized governance. Antonie has already raised this issue. Another 2004 OCDE report (Lessons learned on donor support to decentralization and local governance) points out that successful experiences with decentralization usually take more than a decade to bear fruit.
Looking forward to meeting you in Dakar, I send to all of you my best wishes for 2006.
Best regards,
Emmanuel
